Discussion Questions

Adam argues that “a translation of the original source is always far superior than a translation of a translation,” yet he also calls the Septuagint “maybe…a divinely inspired translation”; how do those two claims fit together, and what does that combination reveal about God’s willingness to work through imperfect textual situations? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Adam says a translation from the original is best, but also says the Septuagint might be inspired by God. How can both be true, and what does that say about God working through imperfect texts?

The talk highlights Masoretic marginal notes where the Masoretes preserve the consonants but suggest a different reading in the margin; what view of Scripture’s preservation and human responsibility does that reflect, and how does it challenge modern expectations that “God would never allow” a corrupted reading to be passed down? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The Masoretes kept the original letters but sometimes suggested a different reading in the margin. What does that show about how God preserves Scripture and what humans are responsible to do, and how does it challenge the idea that God would never let a bad reading get passed down?

Using Psalm 22:16 (“like the lion” vs. “they have pierced”), Adam treats the Septuagint reading as obviously superior because the Masoretic reading “makes very little sense”; what standard is being used to decide between readings (clarity, meaning, theology, manuscript evidence), and how comfortable should Christians be letting “what makes sense” influence textual decisions? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In Psalm 22:16, Adam prefers “they have pierced” because “like the lion” seems to not make sense. What should decide between readings—meaning, theology, manuscript evidence, or what sounds clearer—and how much should “what makes sense” matter?

Adam says the early church “could not read Hebrew,” so the Septuagint wasn’t a chosen preference but the only access they had; what does that imply about early Christian assumptions regarding language, authority, and “the Bible,” and how should that reshape modern claims that “the early church used the LXX, therefore we must”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Adam says the early church couldn’t read Hebrew, so they used the Septuagint because it was all they had. What does that say about what they thought made a text authoritative, and how should that affect the claim, “They used the LXX, so we must too”?

Adam insists New Testament authors show “fluidity” by quoting sometimes from the Septuagint, sometimes from the Hebrew tradition (e.g., Matthew 2:15/Hosea 11:1); what does this suggest about how the apostles viewed precision in quotation versus faithfulness to meaning, and where do modern evangelical habits about inerrancy and proof-texting clash with that? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Adam says New Testament writers sometimes quote the Septuagint and sometimes the Hebrew text. What does that suggest about whether the apostles cared more about exact wording or about the main meaning, and where might that clash with modern ideas about inerrancy and proof-texting?

In Genesis 5 (Methuselah’s age) Adam claims the Septuagint chronology implies Methuselah dies after the flood and therefore conflicts with 2 Peter 2:5’s “eight people”; how persuasive is that argument, what assumptions does it make about chronology and harmonization, and what does it reveal about how we decide “error” in a manuscript tradition? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Adam says the Septuagint timeline in Genesis 5 would make Methuselah die after the flood, which would conflict with “eight people” in 2 Peter 2:5. How convincing is this, what assumptions does it rely on, and how do we decide when a manuscript tradition has an “error”?

Adam criticizes the Septuagint for transliterating Hebrew (Genesis 22:13 “a plant of Sabbath”), interpreting figurative language (Psalm 3:3 “shield” → “helper”), and producing “nonsensical” headings (Psalm 5); how should a group discern when a difficult reading is valuable “texture” and when it is simply a problem needing correction? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Adam points out places where the Septuagint seems to mistranslate, explain figures of speech, or add confusing headings. How do we tell when a hard reading is helpful richness and when it’s just a mistake that needs fixing?

Adam repeatedly expresses frustration that the Orthodox Study Bible—promoted by some as a good LXX English Bible—often follows the Masoretic text even when the LXX seems clearer (Genesis 4:8; 21:16–17); what does this reveal about how modern Bible publishers and traditions actually function, and how might that unsettle “trust the experts” instincts? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Adam is upset that the Orthodox Study Bible often follows the Masoretic text even when the Septuagint seems clearer. What does this show about how Bible publishers and traditions make choices today, and how might it challenge a simple “just trust the experts” mindset?

Adam’s proposed “best of both worlds” approach uses the Masoretic text as the base but adjusts it when it’s corrupt, confusing, unnatural, doesn’t align with New Testament quotations, or has long omissions; which of his criteria feels most uncomfortable or subjective to you, and what guardrails would be needed so “unity with the New Testament” doesn’t become an excuse to rewrite the Old Testament? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Adam says we should use the Masoretic text as the base but change it when it seems corrupt, confusing, unnatural, doesn’t match New Testament quotes, or leaves things out. Which of these reasons feels most subjective to you, and what rules would keep “matching the New Testament” from becoming a way to rewrite the Old Testament?

On the Apocrypha, Adam says they are “secondary… but useful for instruction,” not to be feared, and helpful because the New Testament alludes to them; how does that stance compare to how your church tradition treats non-canonical writings, and what concrete changes (reading plans, preaching references, private study) would honestly follow if you accepted his “read privately, not publicly” framing? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Adam says the Apocrypha is not Scripture but can still help teach us, and should be read privately, not in church. How does that compare with your church’s view, and what would you actually change (reading, preaching, or personal study) if you agreed with him?